On Thu 13 Jan 2000 Massie wrote:
>So you admit the lack of predictive power meaning the ability
>to forcast the next big organism.
What gave you that idea? I told you that you're barking up the
wrong tree by asking for something that cannot be delivered in
the time scale we have available for measuring it. So I will
say again: you do not know what you're asking for.
Let's go back to the car-from-scratch analogy. Suppose you
chase me down as I stomp off muttering about frauds, and say,
"Wait, I have a garage with a dozen cars I've built this way
over the last 40 yrs. I even have photo albums for a couple
showing the work in progress." I stop just long enough to
tell you, "Look, I wanted to see a d-- car in a day! You
obviously can't deliver." Is this sinking in?
I have to wonder whether your apparent refusal to acknowledge
the utility of the past in providing all sorts of examples is
due to diminishingly justifiable, but honest, ignorance OR
whether you suspect your arguments would deflate upon admitting
examples from the past into your thinking.
>But there is still this business of the elasticity of the e
>word. I did not and do not have concern about speciation.
Talk about elasticity! Try holding the target location constant.
When you asked for the "next big organism" ([12 Jan], after
clarifying that from a shotgun "predictive power"[12 Jan]) you
were asking, whether you knew it or not, for A SPECIES. You did
not ask for the next big ORGAN, which you have now gone on and
asked for as if that's what you wanted to begin with. So what
will it be next time? "Organ? I didn't ask for an organ! What
I wanted was proof positive that someone had dusted for God's
fingerprints and found them all over what science has yet to
figure out." That's what your long list of questions to Dave
sound like to me. I worship a God who is not subject to
severe shrinkage at every new finding in biochem. and mol. bio.
>Some claim that it has even been observed, meaning the
>development of non-breeding populations.
>
>Let's ask you something a little simpler.
You might watch with the condescension until you demonstrate
you know a little more about biology than the Wedgies are
willing to tell you. I do not have the time to make this
much more didactic than I have. There is no shortage of
resources available for a good mind like your's to find.
>The E word people claim that they cannot predict and then
>measure because of the time scale.
From today until someone's NSF grant runs out? You are right.
From today until life left its first traces? Sure it can be
predicted and measured, if you would actually consider it.
>So, fine, how about explanatory power.
>
>Its not speciation. What I want explained is inventive
>power. That is, where did these incredible organs such as
>the eye come from and how come such dramatic animal changes
>occurred in such short times (if we are to believe JS
>Gould.) That is what is the key point to explain and I
>look forward to your answer.
Does anyone else feel like personally writing the books and
papers he does not seem to feel like reading?
Dave is doing a fine enough job giving you some answers. I
would only add two items: 1) he's hardly making any new
announcement -- it's out there if you are willing to look,
and 2) some of the things you're asking for are simply out
at the edge or beyond of what is being done right now (as
far as I know). So if everyone says "I don't know" to your
questions, then I guess your God is safe...for now.
As for sudden arrivals at the species party, Gould has one
explanation. There are others (ie, holes in fossil record
are artefacts of record vs. holes are REAL data). Have you
read anything about the homeobox (hox) genes? I am reading
a book that appears to take those as explanation for jumps
in the fossil record.
>Incidently, the book I was referring to about biology is
>Biiology by Campell, Reece, and Mitchell.
I commend your effort. Once you have worked your way through
BIO 121, keep going further in, further up.
>You will be surprised to find a chapter featuring our good
>friend Dawkins.
YOUR friend maybe. He's a great biologist and he's a flaming
atheist. I _would_ be surprised to find an entire chapter
devoted entirely to Mr. Dawkins. He is a very intelligent man
who seems to see his mission as stuffing every crack in the
universe with naturalistic philosophy (materialism) so as not
to allow a single place for God to slip in.
Grace and peace be with you. Jeff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 13:30:17 EST